Quillar v. Zepeda, et al
Filing
96
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 1/04/12 ordering plaintiff's motion to sever 83 is denied. Plaintiff's motion for a contempt order 89 is denied. Defendant's motion to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant 85 is denied. Defendant shall file his response to the third amended complaint within 10 days of the filing date of this order. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
LEE V. QUILLAR,
11
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
No. CIV S-06-2394 JAM GGH P
vs.
D. SHANKLAND, et al.,
Defendants.
15
ORDER
/
16
This is a civil rights action filed pro se by a California state prisoner. The action
17
currently proceeds on plaintiff’s third amended complaint after the Court of Appeals reversed in
18
part this court’s prior judgment. Before the court are plaintiff’s motion for severance (Doc. No.
19
83), plaintiff’s motion for order for contempt of court (Doc. No. 89), and defendant’s motion to
20
declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant (Doc. No. 85). For the reasons outlined below, these
21
motions are denied, and defendant is directed to respond to the Third Amended Complaint within
22
10 days of the filing date of this order.
23
Background
24
Plaintiff originally filed this action in state court on August 1, 2006, alleging,
25
among other things, violations of his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the
26
United States Constitution by twelve defendants who either were or had been employed at the
1
1
California Medical Facility where plaintiff was incarcerated. See Doc. No. 1. Defendants
2
removed the complaint to this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), which authorizes removal of
3
state court actions that raise a federal question over which the federal courts exercise original
4
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b); Doc. No. 2.
5
On October 16, 2009, after several rounds of screening, this court dismissed the
6
remaining claims against the remaining defendants and entered judgment. See Doc. Nos. 57, 66,
7
67. The plaintiff filed a timely appeal and, on March 23, 2011, the Court of Appeals remanded
8
the action, affirming in part and reversing in part this court’s October 16, 2009 judgment. See
9
Doc. Nos. 68, 71, 74.
10
In particular, the Court of Appeals found that, liberally construed, the Third
11
Amended Complaint stated a claim for relief against defendant Shankland for denial of access to
12
the courts. See Doc. No. 71 at 2-3.
13
14
On April 21, 2011, this court directed service of the Third Amended Complaint
against defendant Shankland. See Doc. No. 75. The current motions followed.
15
Motion for Severance
16
Plaintiff moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21
17
to remand this action to the state court “for lack of jurisdiction.”
18
In essence, plaintiff appears to allege that this court is required to remand his case
19
to the state court because this court has dismissed his federal claims, and has declined to exercise
20
supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. See Doc. No. 83 at 5. Defendant opposes
21
the motion, noting, among other things, that this court has never addressed its supplemental
22
jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims. See Doc. No. 82 at 4.
23
Plaintiff is seeking remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), which provides that “[i]f at
24
any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction,
25
the case shall be remanded...” See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (outlining procedures after removal of
26
cases from state court). However, this court retains subject matter jurisdiction over this action
2
1
because the case has been remanded from the Court of Appeals to proceed on plaintiff’s Third
2
Amended Complaint. See Caldwell v. Puget Sound Electrical Apprenticeship and Training
3
Trust, 824 F.2d 765, 767 (9th Cir. 1987) (subject of controversy and parties properly before
4
district court after reversal by court of appeals because mandate of court of appeals, once issued,
5
returns to the district court).
6
As to plaintiff’s state law claims, this federal court has subject matter jurisdiction
7
over plaintiff’s related state-law claims, which it may or may not choose to exercise. See
8
Carlsbad Technology, Inc. v. HIF BIO, Inc,, 556 U.S. 635, —, 129 S. Ct. 1862, 1866-67, 173 L.
9
Ed. 2d 843, 849 (2009), citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). While a district court may decline to
10
exercise supplemental jurisdiction under certain circumstances, this court has not yet done so.
11
See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Moreover, plaintiff’s “denial of access” claim is a federal claim over
12
which the court would certainly have jurisdiction. In light of this continuing jurisdiction, there is
13
no basis to remand the action back to the state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1447.
14
There is additionally no basis for “severance” of the dismissed defendants under
15
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, as there is no indication that the dismissed defendants were
16
misjoined or otherwise impermissibly brought into this action under Rule 20. See Coghlin v.
17
Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1997) (“If the test for permissive joinder is not satisfied, a
18
court, in its discretion, may sever the misjoined parties, so long as no substantial right will be
19
prejudiced by the severance.”); IO Group v. Does 1-19, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133717, *8 (N.D.
20
Cal., Dec. 7, 2010) (“If misjoinder is apparent, under Rule 21, the Court is authorized to ‘drop’
21
or ‘sever’ a misjoined party from the case.”).
22
23
In light of this court’s continuing subject matter jurisdiction over the remanded
federal claim and the state law claims, plaintiff’s motion for severance is denied.
24
Defendant’s Motion to Have Plaintiff Declared a Vexatious Litigant
25
Defendant Shankland asks that plaintiff be declared a vexatious litigant pursuant
26
to Local Rule 151(b) and, as a result, be required to post security before proceeding to trial.
3
1
Defendant also asks that a pre-filing order be entered against plaintiff.
2
Local Rule 151(b) provides:
3
On its own motion or on motion of a party, the Court may at any
time order a party to give a security, bond, or undertaking in such
amount as the Court may determine to be appropriate. The
provisions of Title 3A, part 2, of the California Code of Civil
Procedure, relating to vexatious litigants, are hereby adopted as a
procedural Rule of this Court on the basis of which the Court may
order the giving of a security, bond, or undertaking, although the
power of the Court shall not be limited thereby.
4
5
6
7
In turn, Section 391(b) of the California Code of Civil Procedure provides:
8
9
10
11
12
(b) “Vexatious litigant” means a person who does any of the
following:
(1) In the immediately preceding seven-year period has
commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least
five litigations other than in a small claims court that have been (i)
finally determined adversely to the person or (ii) unjustifiably
permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been
brought to trial or hearing.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
(2) After a litigation has been finally determined against the
person, repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, in propria
persona, either (i) the validity of the determination against the same
defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally
determined or (ii) the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of
the issues of fact or law, determined or concluded by the final
determination against the same defendant or defendants as to
whom the litigation was finally determined.
(3) In any litigation while acting propria persona, repeatedly files
unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, conducts
unnecessary discovery, or engages in other tactics that are frivolous
or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.
20
22
(4) Has previously been declared to be a vexatious litigant by any
state or federal court of record in any action or proceeding based
upon the same or substantially similar facts, transaction, or
occurrence.
23
Finally, Section 391.1 of the California Code of Civil Procedure provides:
24
In any litigation pending in any court of this state, at any time until
final judgment is entered, a defendant may move the court, upon
notice and hearing, for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish
security. The motion must be based upon the ground, and
supported by a showing, that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and
21
25
26
4
1
that there is not a reasonable probability that he will prevail in the
litigation against the moving defendant.
2
3
The Ninth Circuit has counseled caution in declaring plaintiffs “vexatious.” That
4
court has explained that “orders restricting a persons’s access to the courts must be based on
5
adequate justification supported in the record and narrowly tailored to address the abuse
6
perceived.” DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir. 1990).
7
Strictly speaking, plaintiff brought at least five unsuccessful lawsuits, appeals, and
8
petitions in the seven years prior to the filing of this motion.1 Defendants refer this court to six in
9
particular: (1) Quillar v. Baranco, No. 04-1405 DMS (JFS) (S. D. Cal.), a civil rights complaint
10
filed by plaintiff in 2004 which the district court dismissed without prejudice before service
11
because plaintiff did not establish that the defendants, plaintiff’s retained criminal counsel and
12
her investigator, were acting under “color of state law.” See Quillar v. Baranco, No. 04-1405,
13
Doc. No. 4; (2) Quillar v. Baranco, No. 04-56571 (9th Cir.), plaintiff’s appeal of the district
14
court’s dismissal order the above-described case, in which the Court of Appeals, after briefing,
15
affirmed the district court; (3) Quillar v. California Department of Corrections, No. 06-15495 (9th
16
Cir.), plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal of the district court’s order, entered in case no. 04-1203
17
KJM CKD (E.D. Cal.), granting plaintiff in forma pauperis status, directing service of his
18
complaint, and denying injunctive relief. The appeal was dismissed for failure to respond to the
19
Court’s order to show cause; the underlying district court action continued and after judgment
20
was entered against plaintiff in 2008, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further
21
consideration of plaintiff’s request for expungement of certain disciplinary citations; (4) Quillar
22
v. Zepeda, No. 07-15645 (9th Cir.), plaintiff’s appeal of an interlocutory order entered in this
23
district court action (No. 06-2394 JAM GGH) was dismissed by the court of appeals after that
24
25
26
1
Based on court records identified by defendants, the court grants defendant’s request for
judicial notice (Doc. No. 87) and takes judicial notice of this fact pursuant to Federal Rule of
Evidence 201.
5
1
court determined the order on appeal was not final; (5) Quillar v. Nielson, No. 37-2007-82024
2
(San Diego County Superior Court), is a state court action which, according to the order provided
3
by defendants, dealt “extensively with the proceedings of a prior criminal trial.” See Doc. No.
4
87, Exhibit E. According to defendants, the superior court sustained defendants’ demurrer to the
5
first amended complaint without further leave to amend and dismissed the action with prejudice;
6
and (6) In re Quillar, No. 10-70228 (9th Cir.), a mandamus petition filed by plaintiff with the
7
Court of Appeals, seeking its interference in his appeals from a district court order dismissing his
8
petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court of Appeals denied the petition, finding no
9
need for appellate intervention.
10
Based on defendant’s motion, this court cannot say that plaintiff’s filings have
11
been so “numerous or abusive” or “inordinate” to warrant a “vexatious litigant” order. See
12
DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d at 1147-48 (examples of “numerous or abusive” filings include
13
plaintiffs who have filed 35 related complaints, more than 50 frivolous cases, or more than 600
14
complaints); Andrews v. Guzman, CIV-S-04-1107 JAM GGH P, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50939
15
(E.D. Cal., June 17, 2009) (plaintiff did not prevail in any of his actions, and many were
16
dismissed as legally frivolous at the outset).
17
Nor can this court say that plaintiff’s litigation activity reflects a “pattern of
18
harassment.” See DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d at 1148; see also Mellow v. Martin, CIV-S-
19
08-0027 MCE GGH PS, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112452 (E.D. Cal., May 23, 2008) (all of
20
plaintiff’s many actions dismissed for failure to state a claim, judicial immunity, failure to
21
respond to court order, or as frivolous).
22
In addition, it is not clear that plaintiff has no reasonable probability of succeeding
23
on the merits of this case, something which must be shown before plaintiff can be declared
24
“vexatious.” See Delong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d at 1148. In fact, the Court of Appeals has
25
already determined that plaintiff’s third amended complaint articulates a cognizable cause of
26
action against defendant Shankland. See Doc. No. 71 at 2; see also Doc. No. 72 at 2 (“[T]he
6
1
complaint states a cognizable First Amendment claim against defendant Shankland pursuant to
2
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the allegations of this claim are proven, plaintiff
3
has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action.”)
4
5
In light of all of these facts, the court will deny defendant’s motion to have
plaintiff declared a “vexatious litigant.”
6
Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt
7
Plaintiff asks this court to order that defendant be held in contempt for failure to
8
file a timely answer to the Third Amended Complaint. The motion is denied because, under
9
California Code of Civil Procedure § 391.6, applicable pursuant to E.D. Cal. Local Rule 151(b),
10
defendant’s motion to have plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant automatically stayed the
11
litigation.2
12
13
Now that this court has ruled on the vexatious litigant motion, defendant shall
have 10 days to respond to the Third Amended Complaint.
14
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
15
1. Plaintiff’s motion to sever (Doc. No. 83) is denied;
16
2. Plaintiff’s motion for a contempt order (Doc. No. 89) is denied;
17
3. Defendant’s motion to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant (Doc. No. 85) is
18
denied; and
19
\\\\\
20
\\\\\
21
\\\\\
22
23
24
25
26
2
California Code of Civil Procedure § 391.6 is one of the provisions of Title 3A, part 2,
of the California Code of Civil Procedure, relating to vexatious litigants, which have been
adopted as a procedural Rule of this Court. The Rule reads, in pertinent part:
When a motion pursuant to Section 391.1 is filed prior to trial the litigation is
stayed, and the moving defendant need not plead, until 10 days after the motion
shall have been denied....
7
1
4. Defendant shall file his response to the Third Amended Complaint within 10
2
days of the filing date of this order.
3
DATED: January 4, 2012
4
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5
GGH:rb
6
quil2394.vex
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?